JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 bt redliner said in post # :Actually i came to a conclusion, that we are traveling at the speed of light but we'll never see it. Well done. 100% of being wrong after your first post. What made you come to this conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :Yes, and to go light speed requires infinite energy, according to scientists. Correct, with one minor change: To get anything with mass to travel at lightspeed would take infinite energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt redliner Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : Well done. 100% of being wrong after your first post. What made you come to this conclusion? It is conclusion, which i am yet unable to explain. All I know that “time” plays a big role in it. Time travels at the speed of light right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 bt redliner said in post # : It is conclusion, which i am yet unable to explain. All I know that “time” plays a big role in it. Time travels at the speed of light right? No. You might as well say that the distance between the earth and the moon travels at the speed of light. Time is a dimension, not a property (or information for that matter, which is (ignoring some quantum effects which sort of break it but don't) limited to c) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt redliner Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 bt redliner said in post # : It is conclusion, which i am yet unable to explain. All I know that “time” plays a big role in it. Time travels at the speed of light right? So how fast does time travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 bt redliner said in post # : So how fast does time travel? It doesn't. You might as well ask 'How much time does distance????' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I think the problem is that you're misunderstanding the phrase 'travelling through time'. That is an expression that refers to our rate of change of time, rather than time 'moving' or similar. It is we who are doing the travelling, through the direction known as 'time' (direction is a bad word, but it's the only one that can really stick, that comes to mind anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt redliner Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # :I think the problem is that you're misunderstanding the phrase 'travelling through time'. That is an expression that refers to our rate of change of time, rather than time 'moving' or similar. It is we who are doing the travelling, through the direction known as 'time' (direction is a bad word, but it's the only one that can really stick, that comes to mind anyway) Okay, I'll stick to my thoery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 bt redliner said in post # : Okay, I'll stick to my thoery. Good for you, sticking by your conjecture in the face of all evidence. ps It isn't a theory, it's a conjecture. Theories have to have lots of proof behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 It's an interesting one, I'll tell you that! Anyway: Does time go any slower for the things that are going just under the speed of light? I'm Curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt redliner Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Doesn’t time measure our movements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 You've been reading that "movement" thread, haven't you? "Does time go any slower for the things that are going just under the speed of light?" Yes, it has been proven that the faster you go the slower time is, or seems to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :It's an interesting one, I'll tell you that! Anyway: Does time go any slower for the things that are going just under the speed of light? I'm Curious. Time is stopped at the speed of light. The actual equation is t(at v) = t(at rest) * SQRT(1-v^2/c^2). Obviously, if v = c, then the SQRT will be equal to 0, and time will therefore stand still. I must stress that, unless there's an acceleration, this is true for all observers. ie. if you're moving 10ms^-1 away from me, I'll see you as having slower time, but you'll see me as having slower time too. [edit] Again, because c is so large, we never see the effect in every day life. It has been proven to exist, by an experiment involving atomic clocks and a plane, and by the decay rates of particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 What evidence do they use to say that c is the fastest anything can go. --curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 observation of the fact that light goes c relative to all rest frames. then they thought of Special relativity to fit it. and c being the maximum speed is a result of special relativity (i think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :What evidence do they use to say that c is the fastest anything can go. --curious Everything derives from the fact that the speed of light is the same relative to all observers. See: Michaelson-Morely, and a couple of other experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 And, of course, time would stop if you go the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SockCymbal Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 cool..... i still dont understand one thing....you can be traveling .9999 the speed of light....and it will still be moving C away from you...but if you go .1 more...it will instantly stop. oh wait...that has to do with time stopping...not light, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Well, you can't go .1 more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 SockCymbal said in post # :cool..... i still dont understand one thing....you can be traveling .9999 the speed of light....and it will still be moving C away from you...but if you go .1 more...it will instantly stop. oh wait...that has to do with time stopping...not light, right? It won't stop. It will still be moving away from you at c, but it won't actually happen, because time is stationary at lightspeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : It won't stop. It will still be moving away from you at c, but it won't actually happen, because time is stationary at lightspeed. 'actually' refers to one-truth/facts but the facts are relative? edit light speed = posting over 300 messages with 0 hours activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluent in Lies Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 light speed is the speed that a photon must travel at to travel one lightyear in a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SockCymbal Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 bump the doppler effect... if the doppler effect applies to light, that would mean that when you move toward a source the light would get bluer, so would that speed up the waves relative to you, making them hit you at faster than C? i dont get how no matter your speed a light beam will always travel toward you at C, and away from you at C if you are chasing it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 bump the doppler effect... if the doppler effect applies to light' date=' that would mean that when you move toward a source the light would get bluer, so would that speed up the waves relative to you, making them hit you at faster than C? i dont get how no matter your speed a light beam will always travel toward you at C, and away from you at C if you are chasing it.....[/quote'] The Doppler effect changes both the frequency and the wavelength, such that the propagation speed remains c. Everybody wants this (and quantum mechanics) to "make sense." Sorry. nature behaves differently at small scales and high speeds. Leave your "every-day behavior" expectations at the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Hey, this is confusing. So does that mean that If I travel at +0.6C and someone else travels at-0.6C (sign conventions), then we both will see light at C. Now if there's a stationary observer, won't he see light at 1+0.6=1.6C ??? And will mine and the other fellow's relative velocity be 0.6C+0.6C=1.2C. Or is there another formula at high speeds like swanson said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now